The HLLI blog reflects the views of individual attorneys who author each post. This commentary does not necessarily reflect the official position of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute.
Instead of asking for the court to send notice to the class members and giving them the opportunity to comment on a proposed settlement that is going to bind them, the class attorneys asked for the court skip that step entirely and simply approve the settlement. And, shockingly, the court did exactly that!
Our class action legal team at Center for Class Action Fairness, has a video explainer on their upcoming case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Frank v. Gaos.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing is slated to begin Tuesday, September 4, at 9:30 a.m. before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is safe to say that the hearing will be replete with the usual senatorial posturing and pandering. But if they actually get around to asking the nominee some substantive questions, among those that loom largest is how Kavanaugh conceives of the judicial power. Given his dozen years on the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh…
In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an unusual statement concurring with the Court’s denial of review in another privacy case. Justice Roberts opined that the Supreme Court should “address more fundamental concerns surrounding the use of [cy pres] remedies in class action litigation, including when, if ever, such relief should be considered.”
“I would never have appointed you…had I known you were going to pile on 53 law firms on this case,” Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California reportedly told class counsel Thursday in the data privacy settlement of In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation. Judge Koh agreed with a motion filed by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness that a special master should be appointed to investigate…
In In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Google settled for $8.5 million, but class members (including me) will see none of that money.
Coupon relief is notoriously bad for consumers in class action settlements. CCAF seeks reversal of the settlement approval in EasySaver to reiterate the limited exception of Online DVD and ensure a more uniform and correct application of CAFA.
Last week, CEI’s Center for Class Action Fairness’ (CCAF) Anna St. John objected to an unfair class action settlement in Campbell v. Facebook. This case was centered around the theory that Facebook illegally analyzed URLs that users sent over private messages. CCAF has taken on some egregious settlements, but this one is especially ridiculous. Here are seven reasons why: CCAF found out and objected to…
The settlement requires the Met to implement meaningless changes such as referring to its admission price as “suggested” rather than “recommended” in its signs and ticket kiosks. It also requires the Met to pay $350,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who filed the case.
The parties reached a lopsided settlement in which the plaintiffs' attorneys recover $3.9 million while the class gets injunctive relief consisting of 22 words regarding Facebook's practices added to a Facebook help page.
